Evidence of meeting #11 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
This is a fairly quick question, I think.
I think it's clause 18 that refers to this issue already. It seems to me that this particular amendment wouldn't really change the bill at all. It basically says what we say in clause 18.
Could you comment on that?
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Clause 18, specifically proposed new subsection 27(2.1), would provide for greater certainty that a copy made outside Canada does not infringe copyright in terms of secondary infringement “if, had it been made in Canada, it would have been made under a limitation or exception” in the act.
If it could have been made in Canada pursuant to an exception, then it does not infringe by being outside of Canada.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
The problem remains, right, that you have a situation where a person with a perceptual disability is expected, if they are going to get around a digital lock, to put it back on. I'd like to know how they are going to do that.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Regan. I can hand it over to the officials if there is any further comment.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
With respect to digital locks that are applied to material, there is a specific carve-out in relation to persons with perceptual disabilities. I believe it's under section 41.16, under clause 47 of the bill.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I'd just like to say that this amendment came about through broad consultation with the perceptual disability community, that this indeed is not as clear as the government would like it to sound. This is responding to what they are saying. They are saying this is not as clear for them as it could be. This is why we are looking for this amendment. It's for the sake of clarity and to make sure there are no grey zones.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I'll just thank Mr. Benskin for that. It's quite a bit different from what Mr. Regan contended just a few moments ago. I appreciate the clarification.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.
(Amendment negatived)
Moving on to NDP amendment 12, Mr. Angus, will you be moving this?
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes, we will be moving this. I will turn it over to my colleague Mr. Dionne Labelle.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you.
If we want Canada and Quebec to be able to benefit from international agreements aimed at giving people with perceptual disabilities better access to cultural products—as moved by the official opposition with Mr. Benskin's amendment—it is equally important that we do the same for our artists, authors and creators by allowing them to expand the cultural content available abroad. This is a matter of reciprocity and international agreements.
Our aim with this bill and with these amendments is to give Canada a place in the international community. It would seem, however, that the Conservatives are more interested in insulating Canada from the international community in a number of areas, including this one. Persons with perceptual disabilities already have a barrier in their way; they cannot see, isn't that right?
As Mr. Angus mentioned, less than 10% of published works in Canada is currently adapted to a format suitable for those with perceptual disabilities. That number is even more unfortunate when you consider French texts, given the size of the Quebec market, which is much smaller. What's more, unilingual material from the U.S. cannot be used. Quebec is a distinct nation, a unique market. Quebeckers and other French speakers across the country with perceptual disabilities benefit greatly from international cooperation agreements, especially those with France but also those with other members of the world's francophone community.
When we don't have access to a specific product, we work with our French-speaking partners to obtain a copy. People with perceptual disabilities in these other countries can and should also have greater access to the wonderful cultural repertoire of written works produced by Quebeckers, Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and Métis people, to name only the biggest component of Canada's vast francophone culture.
Furthermore, Mr. Harper has received numerous books that he has never read, books that were sent to him by our very own Quebec writers. We want blind people to receive better access to literary works, and we have an opportunity to help them with that. As I see it, we have a responsibility to enrich the repertoire of content available to the blind around the world by making it possible to export copyrighted works adapted to people with perceptual disabilities without penalties. We should not be putting a second barrier in their way.
This amendment is a simple one. It is almost identical to the import protection amendment moved by my colleague, Mr. Benskin. This amendment to section 32 of the act would allow for the export of material and reproduced works that do not infringe on copyrights....
NDP
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
This amendment would recognize partners that help blind people in other countries. This is a matter of reciprocity with other countries, and we want Canada to have a place in that community of nations.
It is our sincere hope that the other parties will support this minor amendment that helps make Canada a world leader in the sharing of adapted content between organizations serving the blind. This amendment would also respect the reciprocity principle to the benefit of persons with perceptual disabilities, both at home and abroad.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 36 agreed to on division)
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
In terms of a possible other amendment, I'd like to move this just in order to have it discussed, because I'd like to hear the response from the officials, if possible. I'm going to ask for consent to—
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Well, its relationship is it affects section 32. Clause 36 amends section 32, and this is section 32.2.
I don't know where else to raise this. If there's agreement, I would read the amendment.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I have a quick question. I'm not clear right now, because he's saying it would amend section 32 of the act, not the bill.
It may be that it's a new amendment. Maybe we could get some clarification on whether he's talking about a new amendment or whether he's talking about an amendment to the....